>> " hello, i am llewellyn king, the host of white house chronicles. we are talking of the resetting of america. as the changes brought on by technology as much as anything else are revolutionizing the way we live, i think we need to revolutionize the way we work. when we have a three-day weekend, there is that incredible luxury, that marvelous thing about the middle day, lying in bed it is utterly luxurious. you don't have to go to work the next day. the tours were done the day before. i just wonder why we can't organize our week to have that

more. once, when i worked at the british broadcasting corporation years ago, we worked three days on at three days off. it was longer does but it that the work. i tried to bring this to ""the washington post." alas, the post was interested in the union -- and the union was not. when it comes to their goals is to be very conservative. they had what -- they had the model contract written by heywood broun written in 190035 and with there were not going to depart from that. it does not fit journalism and the way we live today. i think the time has arrived to seriously think about a four-day week and longer days. if you commute for two hours per day, there is an enormous inefficiency for the amount of work you do when you get to work. if you did it in four days, it would be more efficient. there are problems.

you cannot apply my formula to absolutely everyone. if you do part, mechanical work, manual work, menial work, the kind of work my father did, eight hours is enough and you are broken by the end of the dead. for most of us the way we live nowadays, we can work 10 hours a day and we can work 11 hours a day and the luxury of three days off. one of the interesting things at the bbc was how many books were written, flower gardens planted, place created --plays created, the luxury of a chunk of time was stolen by not working so long in one day curren. we will talk today to general wesley clark, retired, a very distinguished public servant, a retired general of nato. he is doing as much in business

to bring the benefits of technology to the people of the united states and to make us again a very competitive country. he is an extraordinary man and has a distinguished military career and he went to oxford. he has done many interesting things and has a fabulous sense of humor to boot. you will love him and we will be right back ♪"white house chronicle" is produced in conjunction with howard university television. the nationally syndicated columnist llewellyn king and llewellyngasparello. -- and linda gasparello. ♪ >> bank you for coming along and i am joined by general wesley

clark. a pleasure to have you. what are you doing, i know you are working harder than you probably have ever worked. we were talking with a four-day work week but let's deal with big issues. >> many of us are working more than what ever heywood broun lot of us to work anyway. we work 12 or so hours per day. >> i once had a job and a print shop where i had to do this all night, putting something under a little gadget that drilled holes. those along this nights of my life. >> i would say that's enough. >> and extraordinarily boring. the work we have done, there is very little else we would want to do. >> i found it fascinating and the private sector. i am an investment banker. i am in finance, energy, and basically homeland security technology bennett tell me about homeland security technology.

>> i understand you believe we are under cyber threat, that packers could do was enormous damage. -- that hackers could do was enormous damage. the are no tanks rolled across the border and get the advantage can be just as horrible. >> and you are putting it in a hypothetical in the future but the truth is we are under cyber attack every day. there are tens of thousands of people out there who tried to enter people's computers, steal their data, take intellectual property, disrupt systems and some of it is malicious and some of that is pranks and some of it is crimes and some of it is organized by governments, we don't know and most of it is obscured through multiple internet addresses. it is already an ongoing battle field in the cyberspace. >> how vulnerable are we to some

huge disaster? what about the taking out of our electric supply system? >> the more we modernize and the more we control from a distance through the internet and the use of internet protocol communications, if we don't have the fences and security, we could become increasingly vulnerable. >> we spend a lot of money on defense of software, don't we? >> we do. >> do we spend $50 billion and software programs? >> probably more than that. we are spending billions of dollars in private industry and in government on software. we start with fire walls. we got this of the entire virus programs. we work to identify viruses and worms and trojan horses that come into your computer and look for a while and suddenly spring to life and send information

somewhere. we have insurance companies now that can ensure against a day to risk -- data risk. lawsuits are circling around these losses of the data. this is a serious effort by business and by government to protect the value of its data and information. >> one of the companies you are affiliated with, i believe you are on their advisor committee, is a company called inzero. you have a gadget which is a small computer. this is a different approach, this is fighting software demons with hardware. is that correct? >> that is a good way to characterize it. the next step to explain that would be that this is a technology in which there is a separate computer standing between your computer and the

internet. anything that comes in or goes out, goes through this level computer. >it is like a sandbox in which there is no attraction for malicious software. there are complications inside but the principle is that when the software comes in and tries to instruct your computer to do certain things and take your data and send it somewhere, this computer does not listen. it reports the instruction but it does not listen. it does not respond to it. >> where was this developed? >> a scientist in the ukraine came to the united states about eight years ago with the idea that we were going the wrong way. everybody is worried about software and protection on the internet but you cannot beat software with software. you have to beat software with

hardware. he took some ideas that were prevalent in soviet computing technology in isolating various parts of the computer which was done because of the perimeter -- primitive art or capabilities. they could not do the same kind of integrated hardware that we developed in computing. it provided some advantages. he took that principle and built on a to create a hardware solution to software attacks. >> is the only company doing this? i have heard about computers being used in other attempts to defend against attacks. >> people have talked about doing this. there has been research in government to do it but no one has successfully done it. this is, as far as i know, the only company that as a workable commercial product. >> is this being adopted by the

government? is this being examined seriously in government or purchased by the government? >> it is very difficult to get disruptive technology adopted by the united states government. if you go back to the beginning -- >> you mean something different. >> if you go back to the rifle and a repeating carbine, it took years and years and years before the army ever got it. in the 21st century, federal procurement patterns, experience, export knowledge, all of that forms a protective barriers against new ideas and new technology. it is a natural way of doing business. typically, when the government wanted, you go in and say you have this product and they say

what requirement does it make. you say it meets the requirements for security. is there a specific requirement document? you say no there isn't. we know they have security problems. they say they will look at it. it is a sort of do-loop because it was not invented by the government in response to a government need. it was invented by private industry that. >> this was invented for a pair of -- of four protection of aircraft? i think it was done by lockheed martin? >> it sold with northrop grumman and sold abroad. it sold in many countries but not here. this is a technology that has incredible implications.

if it could be adopted, it could virtually shut down the idea of cyber war. this technology can block cyber intrusion and still remain open for communications. >> that is extraordinary. i need to interrupt you for a moment to remind our listeners on sirius xm radio that you are listening to white house chronicles with llewellyn king and retired general wesley clark talking about high tech technologies. this program can be seen around the world on the english- language service of the voice of america and on the 300 american stations that carry it. general, when i met you a while back, after you retired, you were kind enough to speak at a conference by organized on military heavy airlift. we were talking and you said

something which impressed me enormously there was a time when there was a lot of this function about ballistic missile defense. i asked if you were for it and you said to me that you were worried. you said the lobbies will go for it and that will influence congress and the money but our troops will not get what they need necessarily. i thought that was very wise. did they ever get what they needed for more as we were engaged in? >> a lot better job is done as a result of combat. our troops needed body armor, ballistic protection for their eyes, all of them needed night vision goggles, they all needed navigation. every riflemen needed a telescopic sight where they could be affected. the logistics guys need to be armed and equipped with

communications. eventually, most of that has happened i am sorry to say that we had to do it at the cost of thousands of lives and a lot of mission difficulties in the process. the analogy here is that -- and the reason i am working with could this company -- i think it has the potential for making a tremendous difference in national security at large, not only for the individuals involved on the computer but for the whole way we organize and structure society for privacy, for freedom, the ease of communication. this is not the final answer. this is an important step along the path to a good answer. for cyber warfare it with this box that is available now, and individual computer user can protect his computer and have full access and he will never

have a virus come in ortega's information. >> this gets more asymmetrical all the time, doesn't it? some of the things you just talked about like the war fighter and what they need, a lot of it is very basic. it is fairly low-tech. on the other hand, you have the cyber threat. i wonder what the future of the world will look like or the future of war will look like with the development very festive on manned attack vehicles of all kinds. like the use of predators for example. anybody who flies knows you can't turn one into a remote control quite easily. -- you can turn one into a remote-control quite easily.

we have this threat that some very small craft could bring something very evil into a country, including this country. does this were you? this is a new war. >> as long as people have conflict, what ever you build into a fence and look for a way to defend, sure, there are concerns that you have to build the technology against threats out there. we have been trying to disrupt communications for a long time. from before recorded history, people sent spies to get information and provided deception to seize the upon before they could come in. there was a trojan horse and many things. when radio cayman, we began to monitor enemy signals and jam those signals and we tried to spoof those signals and put in false information. this is just one other step

along the path. when you talk about small aircraft and other kinetic threats like that from bombs and so forth, of those aircraft have to be controlled. there is no pilot so it is about communications again and that communication is wallboard to destruction. you can't overpower it with superior electromagnetic strength. you can disrupted with a dielectric magnetic poles. -- you can disrupt it with an electromagnetic pulse. you could disrupt it by putting a check in at -- chip in it that could be activated at a certain time or sir -- or simply distrust. it is a hardware/software problem. if you think of it in those terms, it makes it easier to concede.

it is a small radar cross- section so now you're talking about more powerful radar with greater discrimination. everything in warfare is action, reaction, and counter action. >> and getting the right balance of technology. i am always fascinated. the french had better bows, with greater range and the english had the longbows. you could only shoot so many arrows down on the press. it was a defeat of technology, one of the first ones where the asymmetry was very clear. inaccurate fire from the english limited accurate fire from the french. >> sure, but there were also environmental factors involved. there was also the training that went into this and the national

preparation to create a long bowman. a long ball has to be created at a special kind of wood. to pull that ball back across your ear, you had to be strengthened from childhood to do that. i can tell you to read these things but as we go back, we learn more and more about this. we realize that human intelligence did not start in 1944 or 1964 or 1994. there were small people along the way and we built on each other's advancements. you have to keep your mind open to technology. >> can one go without this huge emphasis on this? are we to panic about math and science? will we turn out to be automatons that don't know anything about the human condition except how to measure it? >> i look at this as an american and i look at what the

challenges are ahead. there are so many opportunities for future opportunities in space, biology, energy, transportation, infrastructure. you cannot get there without science and mathematics and engineering. there is the old story that john adams said he studied war and diplomacy so my children could steady business and commerce for their children. that is fine. if the society loses interest in what makes it work and the stuff of engineering, if you lose the marble of science or the sense of wonder and how can i reach the heavens and can we put a man on mars and is there water on the moon, if you lose that interest, the technology becomes magic. >> what other technologies have changed human life enormously?

which ones do you think of as being seminal? >> we always talk about fire and of the wheel. and a believer. -- end up lever. and rthe lever as we developmental products missions for the world, you have to look at mathematics and engineering and the understanding of how the world comes together. it is not just the physical technology, it is the mental aspect that takes us for. >>ward. >> the engine, the chronometer for accurate navigation, these were tremendously important. one launched the british empire and one launched the industrial revolution.

once you had shaft horsepower, you could manufacture things. is they's world it computer no doubt? >> information technology has been an explosion. that has been made possible largely by u.s. military r &d a expenditures. we had to create something that was more manageable and and during. we created transitions of chips and integrated circuits. we develop lasers and that led to high fidelity entertainment. there has been a lot of military technology that has gone into the entertainment field. i was at the department of energy and got the advanced research projects energy company.

they will create some wonderful technology to promote increased energy, better batteries, so for theth. >> had to answer people when they say government never get anything right? -- how do you enter people who say government never get anything right? what about the speed at which the national laboratories secure big computers and pushed computing, how do you answer that? >> there is an answer on two levels. in the first place, there is a lot of research and development that can be done that is not done commercially because it is not directly tied to corporate profits. the government can organize and has in the past organized and promoted this development historical. the government can be a source of technology. you have to be careful that you are not trying to project

commercial winners. >> or run an industrial policy, which happened with nuclear. the government planned outpoll thing. >> right, one of these technologies you thought was going to change the world and it had drawbacks and concerns that were not obvious at the time. >> it also ran into a particular social time. >> of course, but that started the world we live in. technology is this of the two civilizations' and social mores. that is in mankind and that is under the control of our political agreement. your question goes deeper than technology. your question goes to what is the function of government? one thing that bothered me a lot of recent years is i was one of those people who got it and

laughed when ronald reagan said do not go to government for the solution. it is a great punch line. actually, if you look at the history of the united states of america, it is government that has pointed the way and developed this civilization that we are so proud of. it was thomas jefferson who bought the louisiana purchase. it was andrew jackson who had the vision to send sam houston into texas to help us with the american southwest. it was the homestead act and the transcontinental railroad. it was government support which took us forward. he did start british petroleum. the 20th century was the century of petroleum. can we move past petroleum in the 21st century? one thing is clear is that we will not unless we have a vision from our government.

the idea of getting government out of there and let people buy and sell on an open market, we know that is not really a free market. a free market is a fair market. a society has to have leadership, we have to have vision to take us forward. >> i want to bring us back to something you said where it is hard to persuade the government or corporations to take on new ideas like this computer inside a computer. it is bigger than that. big organizations do not do this. i was at one of the big national laboratories and they developed automobile parts but they could not get any automobile companies. there were wafer the japanese to use them. -- they were waiting for the japanese to use them.

how will a young engineer get the brilliant idea out? >> that is an important issue. i see it a little bit differently in the sense that i think organizations respond to opportunities. if they can bottle up and protect the organization from those opportunities, fine. maybe that is what happened to institutions for several hundred years after they shot down the port system in the 15th century and western technology came in and took over. in the american system, that does not last or work very well. we have a continuous recharging of our institutions and organizations because there is always a changing marketplace. so far, we have been lucky. we have gone through cycles of consolidation the system gets broken down and new technologies emerge. we have new ones and new needs and expressed and new companies formed. thus far, the process seems to

work even though there are large organizations. that is why we find so many great ideas coming from small companies like a companyinzero. they need the wreck in -- they need the recognition. they need a way in to compete. >> if i find a brilliant engineer, i need to give him your phone number. general, this has been a joy talking to you. ♪

>> funding for "to the contrary" provided by...